I think, David, from the point of view of the buyer of domestic labor he is a consumer buying a service commodity, or commoditized service, regardless of how much capital he owns and extracts when he buys labor to add value to a commodity he sells on for a profit. Think prostitute, or nanny. If the prostitute or nanny or personal trainer, or masseuse are employees of a business that sells their service, they may be thought of as part of the proletariat or labor class.
If,they are in biz for themselves they are the laborer and the boss of their business
~
*
P
<~~www.peggydobbins.net
On Jan 22, 2014, at 3:07 AM, David P Á <david at miradoiro.com> wrote:
> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
>>> I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the impact that increased
> rates of unproductive labour (specifically, direct hire of
> domestic/personal service workers by the capitalist class) may have on
> the prevailing rate of profit. Looking at things from the standpoint of
> the social wage, it would seem that such outlays would increase
> aggregate demand and contribute to avoid overproduction/underconsumption
> issues, and, when looked at in the aggregate as a social cost of
> reproduction of capital, wouldn't it form a part of the aliquot share of
> labour to be added up in the production of commodities?
>> So I'm wondering if such a device may stall or counterpoise the tendency
> for the rate of profit to fall. If I'm completely mistaken in this
> notion, I'd also appreciate to hear about it.
>> --
> --David.
> Omnis enim res quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum
> habetur quomodo habenda est.
>> ________________________________________________
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu> Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/pegdobbins%40gmail.com